If you actually look on toms, the 3700+ on stock is better then the 3800+ on stock by quite a bit, overclocking the 3700 to 2.6ghz they showed it, it was like 140.9 fps on 3700+ 102.8 on the 3800+. My conclusion, 3700>3800

04-12-2006 01:54 PM

Greg King

When I got up to 2.9 GHz, I was on air. I also had the window open and it was winter so I was getting really cheap, high performance cooling out of a Thermaltake Blue Orb II.

04-12-2006 01:12 PM

therealjoe

just buy the 3700 its cheeper i cant wait to get mine fired up di you have watercooling when you overclocked it or did you just have heatsink and fan?

12-18-2005 05:14 PM

Greg King

Yes, I would like to see a comparison as well. The Venice and San Diego cores are both great. Since that review, I have been able to get up to 2.9 GHz so I am impressed with the results of this core (it's amazing what a nice PSU will do for you.) If you are torn between the two chips, by all means, get the cheaper of the two as the extra 512 of L2 doesnt make that much differance.

12-18-2005 11:02 AM

Unregistered

You have a point, but I have read on many forums that overclocked the 3700+ with its 1MB cache competes very well with the 3800+. I think many people like me, trying to decide between these two cpus would benefit from a tested performance comparison.

12-18-2005 12:00 AM

Greg King

The 3800+ is a full 200 MHz faster than the 3700+.

Video cards play a larger role in frame rates than the CPU, thats why I didnt include them. I did however include bench results from benchmarks that give an accurate reading on the CPU's power.

12-17-2005 07:49 AM

Unregistered

Review feedback

I would have liked to see how this chip compares with the 3800+ Venice and the gaming framerate tests seem to have been left out. Nonetheless, a good concise review.

11-08-2005 12:20 AM

Rob Williams

Agent, I agree that the 3700+ is a damn sweet choice. You *may* want to consider an Opteron 144 or 146 in your decision though. They also have 1MB of Cache, and are very common to overclock past 3.0GHz stable on air or water.

Either way, they both are kick ass chips.

11-07-2005 11:08 PM

AgentMeister

Truly, one sweet bang 4 the buck

Having that 3700+ Sandy inside your rig is a wise choice. OCing to the level of the FX-55 for less dollars and getting that performance is really great. I'm moving from my ol' reliable Socket-A to 939 and definitively that Sandy is my choice.

Greetings.

10-20-2005 11:26 AM

Rob Williams

Well, since AMD outsold Intel in the last little bit, it looks like we are winning

10-20-2005 12:19 AM

Unregistered

3700+ Sd

I reckon that extra L2 cache will come in handy as the 64 software progresses and becomes more developed-mainstream, but hey, by then 1000kb of L2 will be stock and things will be looking even better,,lol.

And so on,,the future looks good

Looking forward to the AMD vs INTEL, if Intel accepts.

AMD FAN<

09-21-2005 02:09 AM

Greg King

Rob did quite a bit as well but thank you. I love this proc. I appreciate your kind words.

And I agree....AMD is tops!

09-20-2005 11:03 PM

Regeneration

Nice review dude.
AMD is the best!

09-20-2005 08:21 PM

Rob Williams

AMD64 3700+ San Diego S939 2.2GHz

Need a CPU and want the best bang for your buck? Today, we are taking a look at the 3700+ San Diego core AMD64. It rolls in at a 2.2GHz stock speed and is also equipped with 1MB L2 Cache. The chip costs around $275US, but does does it give enough extra performance to warrent the extra money over a Venice core?

After checking out the review here, please feel free to discuss it here! Questions, comments and suggestions are welcomed, and you do not need to register to post.